(Original post by fuzznbass)
Well how is changing it going to achieve anything ? Ok then howabout "don't try, don't fail". I still believe that you have to have some sort of impetus to encourage people. Yeah they still held that view in the 50's didn't they when things were good. You need something to inspire people in both good times and bad times. If times are hard, shouldn't peope be more willing to escape poverty ?

The average person works hard. No one needs any impetus to escape poverty, they instead need opportunities.

(Original post by ruperts)
Nearly, that figure is in USD so it's about £5,600. To put that into context, someone on minimum wage in the UK earns £12k. So if wealth was redistributed fairly we'd all be earning less than half of minimum wage.

But money is imaginary, that could be any figure and it wouldn't matter. What would matter is what happens after that and how prices change. Redistribute the wealth and a car price today would definitely not be the price after.

(Original post by Besakt)
Is there any need to be a sheep though? Just because everybody else is buying a house does that mean you should also?

Spoiler:

Show

If you believe the first advert you are a ****ing idiot.

No it doesn't. There is no need to be a sheep at all, but there is always pressure. Always.

Why are you so greatly underestimating the power of advertising? Companies spend huge amounts on advertising because it works.

Are you saying that stupid people deserve to be taken advantage of? Actually let me rephrase that. You are saying that stupid people deserve to be exploited and that is a sentiment that I entirely disagree with.

(Original post by Nice Marmite)
The average person works hard. No one needs any impetus to escape poverty, they instead need opportunities.

Duh! I'm not saying the average person doesn't work hard. What so people should remain in poverty ? Poverty is an impetus , If it isn't why do people want to get of it ?but yes there are opportunities that can get them out of it, I didn't say they weren't any opportunities for people, I think we need more frankly.

There is nothing wrong with the rich having more - indeed - MUCH more then the rest, provided they earned it in a legal way without extortion. Wealth equality is irrelevant. What is important is total wealth. Average wealth goes up when there is less re-distribution. This is apparent when one compares countries that have embraced the capitalist model to those who embrace the socialist one. (Norway doesn't count because of it's huge natural resources).

Remember that the 1% isn't some black hole who deprives everyone else of wealth. They will spend or invest it in whatever way they see fit, which will provide wealth for everybody. Imagine a rich person who has lots of money because he enjoys low taxes. What will he do with this money? He will buy stuff (Jobs created in manufacturing and distributing this "stuff"), invest in a business (Jobs created, new product created, standards of living increased as a result) or perhaps donate to charity.

(Original post by Nice Marmite)
No it doesn't. There is no need to be a sheep at all, but there is always pressure. Always.

Why are you so greatly underestimating the power of advertising? Companies spend huge amounts on advertising because it works.

Are you saying that stupid people deserve to be taken advantage of? Actually let me rephrase that. You are saying that stupid people deserve to be exploited and that is a sentiment that I entirely disagree with.

If people are educated (like the vast majority in this country) but refuse to learn then yes they deserve to be exploited.

(Original post by fuzznbass)
Many of the rich are/have pledging their fortunes away- Gates, Buffett, Bannatyne, Carnegie. Many rich feel a duty to do so.

Oh, you could say it's all a lie just to toy/screw us ordinary working folk over of course if you still want to.

So you really feel that *the* rich man, to back your argument that the only rich men that believe "we're all in it together" are politicians, is Buffet?

Mhm.

And as a btw - I never said anything relating to your second sentence, or mentioned anything re: some rich people giving money away. I merely questioned your choice of "proof" that it is only policiticans who think that way. Someone who pledged to give away 99% of his wealth is not reliable proof, imo.

(Original post by mevidek)
I'm afraid I have to disagree on most of what you've said, but mainly due to the fact that I don't think that these "thinking jobs" as you've called them deserve to be paid any more than those who work hard to create the products they "think". I shall dissect what you've said paragraph by paragraph simply because it's easier to answer your points

Fair enough, if they work hard then they deserve what they've got, but the general idea that a tiny percentage deserves much, much, much more than others is, to me, unfair. It might just be because I'm a Cosmopolitan, but I see all humans as equal, and want to see this social divide (which is quite evident even today) be closed.

I've answered that question in my last comment in reply to politics_student, and I'm basing it on hours worked, effort involved, benefit to society and ability.

Firstly, many of the '99%' have degrees, often from top universities, and performed excellently academically, so it's not like only the '1%' performed in school. That's a myth with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Secondly, that's fine. It really is. If people are artistic, or are inventors, fine. If they ("thinking" workers) actually contribute to society and genuinely improve the lives of people, then I've got nothing against them earning the money they earn. It's just that, as I've previously stated, those that actually make the products deserve more as well. Thirdly, as you've said, these "thinking jobs" as you've called them, are not just done by the '1%'. They're also done by ordinary people, and if they work just as hard, and contribute just as much, surely they deserve the same amount of money as the '1%' "thinking job" employees (or employers for that matter). Fourthly and finally, it's not like the majority "can't do these jobs". Many people can, but these jobs are already taken up by the successful '1%'. It's not fair, and your analogy just isn't correct. As I've said, most people now have degrees, and loads of people do well in school, so what you've said is really just not correct (I mean about the grades and the "majority not able to do these jobs".

It's unfair that people work their arses off and don't get paid enough to live. Have you seen the working conditions of many people in this country who earn the least, and of workers in South America, Asia, and Africa? They're disgusting, and unfair. This is something I'd like to see change as it's really a problem when there are people in society who live comfortable lives in nice neighbourhoods, get degrees without trying, and go on to do nothing with their lives or take on from Daddy's business. On a side note, I don't buy designer clothes as I think they're pretty ugly usually, but it comes down to personal taste I guess

Ok I can sense this going round in circles so I'm going to try not to add anything else to it

Basically the first point you made was taken a bit too literal and you have turned it into something which I wasn't trying to say. There are many other factors which are considered when people get and apply for jobs, that for me was the obvious one. Others are personality and ambition and whether the interviewer likes them, to name a few.

You're third point: You're not wrong but here it comes down to positions in companies. To be in the 1% you have to earn about £120,000 + and this is a guess but I would say these people who are in companies are at the top of companies or very close. Now I hate to say this but at these levels it's who you know but also where you went to university, I can name a few companies that will only employ people at the top if they have a degree from Oxbridge (of course there will be the exception). I think these cover the fourth point as well.

Lastly I have seen there working conditions on T.V and there living conditions in really life and wouldn't wish them on anyone.
You're comment about getting degree's without trying I don't think is correct, you can't 'buy' a university degree these days, you have to get it with merit - some people may get them easier than others, people may be cleverer or just have better skills to help cope but this has little to do with wealth and the 1%.

As for you're side note, I agree some of the cloths are vile, but not all. Although people do seem to forget that rich people can have bad taste and just because it's design doesn't mean it looks good.

(Original post by Shani)
So you really feel that *the* rich man, to back your argument that the only rich men that believe "we're all in it together" are politicians, is Buffet?

Mhm.

And as a btw - I never said anything relating to your second sentence, or mentioned anything re: some rich people giving money away. I merely questioned your choice of "proof" that it is only policiticans who think that way. Someone who pledged to give away 99% of his wealth is not reliable proof, imo.

The "we're in it all together" is a phrase used by politicans to justify political actions i.e cuts, thats all it is.

because people are jealous of others success...
lets be honest the vast majority of these people didnt get to where they are today through sitting on their arse's.. they worked theyre armani covered asses off to climb the corporate ladder or set up their own business. these people who're on minimum wage bitching and griping about the ineuality and unfairness of it all well its almost unilaterally their own fault... why should someone who works in KFC who failed their exams and just generally couldnt be bothered to put the effort in be rewarded the same who studied diligently thtrough school, through uni and worked like theres no tomorrow to suceed in their chosen profession? they shouldnt. you get what you deserve in life and someone who's never worked for that does not deserve to be remunerated with vast piles of money.

(Original post by Lulamae)
Many f you may be aware of the documentary film "The One Percent" that talks about the widening gap of wealth in which 1% of the population earns high amounts of money (42% of all wealth) and rest remain 'mediocre.'

I haven't seen the cocumentary, but I have a general question: Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?

I don't quite understand where all the anger is coming from.

I think some people find it difficult to distinguish between those who hate the rich and those who hate the social mobility of a country. Most reasonable people won't hate the top 1% for simply being in the higher bracket, what they want is the ability for poorer people to move in to that bracket through hard work also. They are against the idea that someone who become wealthy and higher earning simply because they are born in to a rich family. Also some economic studies have shown that quality of life indicators for both rich and poor countries that are well developed that equality leads to a better life overall.
However i personally think that social mobility in the UK is pretty good, my parents didnt come from money but although we're not rich we're doing pretty well for ourselves and despite my grandparents coming from africa with basically no money they're all doing pretty well as well. Although this is one case I can look at all of my family and friends (whose parents and grandparents went through the same thing) and they're all doing fine, not saying they're all rich or anything but they're doing pretty well for themselves.

Part of the anger is that you can't just "work harder" to get into the 1%. The 99% are the people who work bloody well hard, day in day out, and for a basic wage, and with little or no prospects of climbing the career ladder. In other words, they're going to be stuck in the same convenience store, or fast food restaurant, or same delivery van for the rest of their foreseeable lives. And before you say this is due to qualifications, remember that this 99%/1% movement originated in America, where university fees are huge, even for state residents, and without the loan system that enables the majority of British students a chance at higher education.
It's also considered unfair because the 1%, or more correctly the elite, caused the economic downturn that is impacting so heavily on ordinary citizens. Particularly in the US, thousands have had, or face having their homes repossessed and their lives turned upside down. Why? Because greedy, blind fools in the bank gave them loans they couldn't realistically pay back, and when the economic crisis hit (arguably caused by other reckless and greedy bankers and traders), the 99% started losing their jobs, and then their homes.

And what punishment has there been for the rich? In the public perception, nothing. They still spend the average house price on a car so their child can sleep, or the average yearly wage on a handbag, they still host lavish parties, and most sickeningly they still get million pound bonuses, even though they screw up. Hell, I'd love to be in a job where I can still completely **** up and get a massive bonus!

Yes, I'll admit, I am jealous of the lives of the 1%, simply because it would be great to just sit on my hundreds of millions and never have to worry about the car needing repairs, or the oven breaking, or a water pipe bursting, and be able to buy whatever I want without thinking about it. But personally, I'm more angry about the injustice and the sheer lack of accountability that has let these people ruin lives and skip off to the bank to cash their bonuses.

On that second part where it was rich people who ruined the country I would say that banks handing out money too easily was part of them problem but dont you see any wrong-doing on the part of the people who borrowed money to buy houses they couldnt afford and had them taken away. I will repeat bankers did hand out money too easily but its not like the people who recieved the money were complaining. Everyone was just too shortsighted to see what would happen. Its easy to complain that you shouldnt have been given the money but its not like you were forced to take it.

Also I do know that some loans were missold (it happened to my dad) but i still dont think that the majority of the loans which ended up in reposessions and stuff like that were mis-sells. I just feel like when loans are taken out there has to be input from both sides and in most cases no one side can be blamed (for instance where one side lies)

I'm going to go ahead and say it, I support the 1%. I'm not dissing poor people, I'm not rich myself but there is always inequality and always will be . On another note our country is alot richer than many countries.

(Original post by fuzznbass)
So who else has used it then ? why is it used ?

(Original post by fuzznbass)
I'm going to go ahead and say it, I support the 1%. I'm not dissing poor people, I'm not rich myself but there is always inequality and always will be . On another note our country is alot richer than many countries.

The point I was getting at, and the point you seem to be missing, is that "the rich" seem to think they're hard done by, they have it hard, they deserve every penny they have (*) and "the poor" deserve every penny they don't have.

Reality and society [the society they owe everything to - as without them, they'd have nothing] means they're deluded.

* Some, of course, will deserve what they have, whilst some don't deserve it at all.

(Original post by Lulamae)
Many f you may be aware of the documentary film "The One Percent" that talks about the widening gap of wealth in which 1% of the population earns high amounts of money (42% of all wealth) and rest remain 'mediocre.'

I haven't seen the cocumentary, but I have a general question: Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?

I don't quite understand where all the anger is coming from.

No, because in the real world everything is not perfectly fair and the world is not a perfectly representative meritocracy.